New Montana proposed rules show increased state government hostility to wolves-

Last week, more than a million Americans registered their opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed plan to remove Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves in most of the lower-48 states. This was the largest number of comments ever submitted on a federal action involving endangered species.

One of the reasons so many of us oppose the plan is because removing federal protections from wolves means handing their management over to state governments and wildlife agencies. Unfortunately, many states have demonstrated hostility toward wolf conservation, such as with overly aggressive hunting and trapping seasons, the designation of “predator zones” where wolves may be killed year-round without a permit, and large appropriations of taxpayer dollars doled out to anti-wolf lobbyists. If states are allowed to take the reins now, before wolves have had a chance to recover in places like the Pacific West, southern Rockies, and northern New England, wolves may never get the chance.

Continuing the disturbing pattern of state aggression toward wolves, Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks (“FWP”) Commission recently proposed several amendments to the state’s wolf management rules that would greatly expand the circumstances under which landowners could legally kill wolves on their property. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) testified against, and submitted a letter opposing, many of the proposed changes, because they are unnecessary, impossibly vague, and would result in the trapping and killing of many non-threatening, non-offending wolves and other animals too.

For example, one of the proposed amendments would allow landowners to kill any wolf, anytime, anywhere on their property, without a permit, whenever the wolf constitutes a “potential threat” to humans or domestic animals.

Yet the amendment does not define “potential threat” or provide any clear examples of when a wolf is or is not acting “potentially threatening.” This is a big problem because some landowners (as one sitting next to me loudly announced during a recent public hearing) consider all wolves on their property “potential threats”—despite, for example, the fact that wolves commonly travel near and among livestock while completely ignoring them.

And even if “potential threat” was clearly defined, such a rule would be unnecessary. Montana law already allows a person to kill a wolf if it is “attacking, killing, or threatening to kill” a person, dog, or livestock, or to receive a 45-day kill permit for a wolf that has already done so. Further, the state pays ranchers the full market value of livestock losses when government investigators confirm, or even think it was probable, that the animal was killed by a wolf. These measures already safeguard ranchers and their property; allowing “potentially threatening” wolves to also be killed seems more a guise for further reducing the state’s wolf population than providing needed assistance to landowners.

Another amendment would allow landowners with a kill permit to use foothold traps to kill wolves that have attacked livestock. Such an amendment is unnecessary, because kill permits already allow landowners to shoot these wolves. Further, foothold traps are non-selective, and would be more likely to capture a non-threatening, non-offending animal than a specific wolf. In fact, foothold traps are so indiscriminate, and cause such prolonged pain and suffering, that they have been banned in more than 80 countries, and banned or severely restricted in several U.S. states.

Allowing the use of foothold traps could also result in the capture and killing of threatened and endangered species such as wolverines, lynx and grizzly bears, as well as black bears, deer, elk, moose, mountain lions, eagles, and, yes, landowners’ own dogs and livestock—the very animals these traps would supposedly be protecting. The odds of incidental captures would be particularly high, given that landowners would be allowed to leave these traps out a full month and a half after the livestock attack had occurred.

A third amendment would remove the requirement that FWP set quotas during the wolf hunting and trapping seasons. Quotas, when used properly, help ensure against hunters and trappers killing unsustainable numbers of wolves, entire packs, wolves that primarily inhabit protected areas, and wolves that pose little or no threat to domestic animals (such as wolves that reside in wilderness areas or in places where little or no grazing occurs). Given that this year FWP extended the season by two months, increased the number of wolves one could kill from one to five, and authorized the use of electronic calls (some of which mimic the cries of pups), it should be proposing to institute more quotas, not fewer.

Like FWS’ proposed “delisting,” the FWP Commission’s proposed amendments are simply not rooted in science or conservation. Instead, ironically, two agencies tasked with recovering and sustaining healthy wolf populations have manufactured the species’ newest threats. Both proposals should be dropped, and conversations begun anew about new ways to conserve and manage, not kill, these animals. Let’s discuss how to treat them as they deserve to be treated—not as saints, not as demons, but, very simply, as the wild, intelligent, ecologically critical creatures that they are.

As wolves.

23 Responses to new rules would allow montana landowners to shoot, trap more wolves

avatarLouise Kane says:

December 31, 2013 at 10:03 am

Management of large carnivores needs to be rethought, states are incapable of overcoming the bias against predators to manage them responsibly. It really is appalling to see the continued aggression against wolves by the agencies tasked with conserving public trust resources. The ESA was enacted in part to address the issue that certain species needed protection because they were threatened or endangered in their habitats/ranges and without protection they would not recover. Congress recognized that states were incapable or managing those species on a state by state basis. I think a good case can be made for predators…..states are incapable of managing predators in an ecologically responsible way. The wolf after delisting is a prime example. Coyotes another….the persecution of coyotes is inexcusable. They have become targets for killing just because……

REPLY

avatarrork says:

December 31, 2013 at 4:27 pm

I think states are capable, at least for wolves, and at least for states with management plans in place (I’m more worried about Utah, Maine). I’m optimistic about what citizens can do, and don’t see a state where the majority of citizens will want overly anti-wolf policies. It may take time for them to effect their will. Part of the reason I’m optimistic has to do with which people are economically impacted, or think they are, and how much – the economic impact of a few more wolves is not that large, or broad. Other species that need water not to be used for irrigation, or nice timber, (or are less attractive) are not as lucky.

REPLY

avatarramses09 says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Rork – what are you smoking?? These states cannot manage their wolf populations. I speak of MT, ID, WY, WI. & Michigan more than anything. They HATE wolves & will do anything to eradicate them.

The people who live in these states do not base their hatred on anything but old wives tales or folklore. They are immune to SCIENCE. Sorry to be the bearer of reality.

I don’t trust humans – they are to hateful and or greedy. (Some)

REPLY

avatar Jon Way says:

December 31, 2013 at 10:13 am

Wildlife conservation groups need to get on the same page and come up with a unified plan against these corrupt abusers of power (state wildlife agencies) whom seem to have no accountability and do what they plan. I believe that it has to be a Carnivore Conservation Act that starts at the state level (like in MA) and then progresses nationally:

It is obvious that state game agencies are beyond reforming and much of the postings on this site have turned (and rightfully so) to bitching – but nothing seems to come from it. CC Acts will unify multiple groups to look beyond “their” focus species (like wolves) to look at what happens to wildlife nationwide. At least this might be a start.

REPLY

avatarIda Lupines says:

December 31, 2013 at 10:56 am

This is wonderful.

REPLY

avatarRita k Sharpe says:

January 1, 2014 at 7:19 am

Indeed, this is wonderful.

REPLY

avatarramses09 says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Amen Jon!

REPLY

avatarNancy says:

January 1, 2014 at 6:03 am

I hope everyone here will take the time to go to Jon’s site and read the CCA plan. And, pass it on :)

KUDOS!!! Louise, Jon and your team, for putting this together.

REPLY

avatarTrap Free Montana Public Lands says:

December 31, 2013 at 10:35 am

We are moving farther away from respectful, humane coexistence with nature and jeopardizing our safety as well. Although the voices of the majority object, special interest groups control the fate of predators. We aim to change some of that in a fair and democratic fashion. We promote preventative nonlethal methods for public land multiple use to honor working with rather than dominating or destroying nature. Traps are cruel, indiscriminate, destructive devices luring and catching anything in their path including predators, prey, domestic animals as well as rare and endangered species. Our goal is to achieve trap free Montana public lands through a citizen ballot initiative. It’s fair, reasonable and good for Montana. All Montanans should have the power to decide what happens on our public lands.

REPLY

avatarLouise Kane says:

December 31, 2013 at 12:39 pm

To address your post Trap Free

Coyote Killing Contests 2013update.doc.

To those that argue killing contests, bad trapping practices, inhumane and torturous treatment of wolves and other wildlife are isolated incidents or that a minority of hunters participate, this is a document that Elizabeth and Guy Dicharry have compiled. It is a list of 70 or more events taking place nationally, some of these events have been going on for years. In their words, “This list does not include the hounding/penning contests…Please let us know what else you find or if we have an error. We are so glad that we are beginning to finally get the national publicity to STOP THE CONTESTS! And as you will see, some of these contests have been held annually for many years. HSUS, Project Coyote knew there were contests but I don’t think anyone realized just how many there were….they have grown like a virus over the last 10 years. I think the expiration on the ban on semi-automatic weapons back in 2004 really had an impact on the growth of these contests as well as the development of other killing technologies. These contests have the potential to destroy our wildlife as we know it.”

Indeed, these contests and the general corrupted process of wildlife management is skewed to ignore voices of reason. For what sane person condones people armed with all manner of weapons hunting down, terrorizing and killing wild predators where there is no valid management objective, need, or reason other than to kill? Its out of control.

What reason is there not to be outraged or to object?

REPLY

avatar Larry Thorngren says:

December 31, 2013 at 1:53 pm

We have to do what the ranchers, woolgrowers, and outfitters do. They contribute money for executive directors that lobby state legilatures full time. The Idaho cattlemens association contributes #1.00 for every cow they own for lobbying.

The Idaho Outfitters and Guides association just hired a new excutive director. They also have learned how to tap the taxpayers for $45,769.00 this year through Idaho Department of Commerce grants to help pay his salary.

The executive director of the Idaho Woolgrowers wrote the Idaho Wolf Plan.

Until we are ready to back up our ideas with money to elect and lobby politians, we, as the pig farmers used to say: “will be sucking the hind tit”.

REPLY

avatarImmer Treue says:

December 31, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Or end the troph called lobbying.

REPLY

avatarramses09 says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:19 pm

That is sick, absolutely insane.

” They also have learned how to tap the taxpayers for $45,769.00 this year through Idaho Department of Commerce grants to help pay his salary.”

REPLY

avatarIda Lupine says:

December 31, 2013 at 4:52 pm

It is a list of 70 or more events taking place nationally, some of these events have been going on for years. In their words, “This list does not include the hounding/penning contests…

I’ve wondered why such violence persists into the 21st century, it is like there is a deep need in humans to express violence, and since it is targeted towards animals, it isn’t taken as seriously, and maybe society sees it an an outlet. Like the ‘getting it out of their system’ comment – only it doesn’t work. I guess the old ideas and teachings about animals not having feelings and perceptions are hard to get rid of, despite more and more evidence to the contrary. It needs to stop, these things are beneath humanity. I wish these people knew how they look in these photos, all dressed up in camo and warring with coyotes and other animals.

REPLY

avatarElk375 says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Louise

” I think the expiration on the ban on semi-automatic weapons back in 2004 really had an impact on the growth of these contests as well as the development of other killing technologies. These contests have the potential to destroy our wildlife as we know it.”

Semi automatic weapons are not generally used in coyote hunting. The hunter would select a 223 Rem, 22-250, 220 Swift, 243 Win, 257 Roberts or a 25-06 Rem. The bolt rifle would have a 24 to 26 inch barrel with bedding and a 6 to 10 power scope.

The distance between the backbone or brisket of a coyote in approximately 6 inches and at 300 to 500 yards a shooter is going to use something more than a semi-auto with a 16 to 20 inch barrel and designed to fire accurately to 200 yards. The shooter is going to want a very flat shooting rifle.

No, the expired ban on assault guns has nothing to do with the increase number of coyote contest.

REPLY

avatarSEAK Mossback says:

December 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm

This is one more example of the increasing tension between sacrosanct private property rights in the western US and public ownership of wildlife on those same private lands — that some on the right would like to settle in favor of privatizing wildlife like in Europe. Who controls wildlife and to what end?

In Alaska private property access rights are more liberally defined, to the extent that the land owner has to prove they are actively discouraging the public in order to limit consumptive access to wildlife, while it is illegal to disturb snares or traps set by someone else on your land. I actually prefer this general access system as life and freedom in my neighborhood (with many old patented mining claims) would be very different if the “code-of-the-west” type trespass law of Montana (for example) was actively applied here. However, if someone is inconsiderate enough they can legally and without permission (and with protection from disturbance) saturate your property with bait and wolf snares:

As a kid I used to wander across private property in our neighborhood (in Michigan) with impunity, as all of the neighborhood kids did. There was, however, one guy that defended his property line vigilantly. One day (I was about 9 or 10) three of us were playing in the wooded area behind his house when he burst from the door and literally ran us down, screaming like a madman all the while. After we explained we were just playing, and weren’t on his property (and after he calmed down a bit), he explained that he was worried we would damage an antique covered wagon that sat on his property about 100ft from where we were playing.

I agree with you SEAK. I prefer a system where people are allowed to trespass so long as they aren’t doing any harm and stay out of the curtilage of dwellings.

REPLY

avatarWyoWolfFan says:

December 31, 2013 at 5:14 pm

How is that almost 20 years on, so many people still have the same attitude about wolves? Have we skipped over the 20th century completely, even though we are nearly 14 years into the 21st century?

REPLY

avatarLouise Kane says:

December 31, 2013 at 8:33 pm

Wyo wolffan

20 years on…

120 years on……

good comment time to think differently to reject stupid and inhumane policies

REPLY

avatarKen Watts says:

December 31, 2013 at 5:19 pm

“I’ve wondered why such violence persists into the 21st century, it is like there is a deep need in” wolves “to express violence, and since it is targeted towards” sheep, cattle, and dogs, “it isn’t taken as seriously, and maybe society sees it an(sic) an outlet.”

Ida, there are two sides to this issue. We must consider the people whose livelihood depends on domestic animals and find a fair balance.

REPLY

avatarIda Lupine says:

December 31, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Yes, there are legitimate reasons for management I suppose – but I don’t think ‘contests’ fall in that category. They are disrespectful to life, IMO.

Also, no one is guaranteed a livelihood – today people need to adapt and adjust when their livelihoods are being downsized, outsourced and just plain eliminated altogether. While I respect the way of life that people in the West have, the outside world is encroaching and destroying our wildlife. It is no longer the way it used to be in this country.

REPLY

avatarramses09 says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Ida, I love your post’s. You are invaluable to this specific site. I love your posts.

REPLY

avatarIda Lupine says:

December 31, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Oh, thank you so much. I’m just a concerned citizen, for years. I’m glad I found this site. It’s very shocking to see our country going backwards regarding our wildlife, especially with a Democratic administration. I’ve learned a lot of valuable information on both sides of the issue.

O#StopMontanaWolfHunts DOMESTIC SHEEP POSE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO BIGHORN SHEEP AND BISON IN THE GARDINER BASIN.

In many past episodes where domestic sheep interacted with bighorn sheep

there have been very large scale die-offs

of bighorn sheep.

By Ken Cole on December 3. 2013

It may already be too late

Throughout the west, bighorn sheep are seeking out mates and the rams are giving an incredible display by butting heads in competition for ewes.

This is a very visible spectacle in the Gardiner Basin of Montana that lies just north of Yellowstone National Park which is filled with many kinds of wildlife including bighorn sheep and bison.Both of these species are especially susceptible to pathogens carried by domestic sheep.

Bighorn sheep are extremely susceptible to several different pathogens that result in pneumonia and cause large scale die-offs of the sheep. Bison are susceptible to a disease called malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) which is caused by the ovine herpes virus-2 (OHV -2). All sheep should be presumed to be carriers of the OHV-2 virus as well as the pathogens that cause pneumonia in bighorn sheep.

Unfortunately, Bill Hoppe, a resident of Gardiner, Montana, has not moved his sheep out of the Gardiner Basin where several were attacked and killed by wolves earlier this spring. And, last week, Kevin Hurley, a former wildlife biologist for Wyoming Game and Fish and now conservation director for the Wild Sheep Foundation, observed a bighorn sheep ram enter the field where Hoppe’s domestic sheep are grazing just across the Yellowstone River from Yellowstone National Park. There are now reports of sick lambs in the vicinity of Gardiner where there is a population of bighorn sheep that uses areas inside and outside of Yellowstone National Park.

In many past episodes where domestic sheep interacted with bighorn sheep there have been very large scale die-offs of bighorn sheep. In some cases up to 95% of the herd is lost to pneumonia and lamb recruitment to the population suffers for many years after an outbreak. If there has been contact that results in an outbreak it could be disastrous to the population in and around Yellowstone National Park.

Bison will begin to move into the basin sometime this spring and they may also come into direct contact with these domestic sheep unless the sheep are moved. Last spring I witnessed both bison and bighorn sheep within a quarter mile of these sheep while on a short visit to the area.

It seems selfish for Hoppe to be putting so much wildlife at risk. And for what? To make a point about private property rights? I don’t know, but private property rights do not trump everyone else’s right to enjoy wildlife in the world’s premier national park. There are solutions and this is not over. People should be agitating for the state, county or municipalities to use their authority to regulate this clear risk to public wildlife. They have the authority to zone uses such as this just like cities regulate whether your dog has to be on a leash or whether you can have roosters in your back yard. It is an obvious nuisance that can, and should be regulated.

Weatherly talked to Hoppe in April to propose some alternatives such as helping Hoppe find a different pasture or installing a double fence around the pasture. Weatherly said Hoppe wasn't receptive to any alternatives. “I even talked to him about the danger of predators and it wasn't two days later that the wolves killed his lambs,” Weatherly said.

A bighorn ram is seen within yards of a domestic sheep herd on Bill Hoppe's property near Gardiner on Nov. 28, 2013.

Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 12:15 am

by Laura Lundquist, Chronicle Staff Writer

On Thursday, Kevin Hurley was thankful for many things, but the sight of a bighorn ram within 6 feet of a flock of domestic sheep was not one of them. On Thanksgiving Day, Hurley, conservation director for the Wild Sheep Foundation, was driving to Gardiner from Livingston on his way to visit friends. North of Yankee Jim Canyon, he detoured to the west side of the Yellowstone River where he saw a gaggle of photographers snapping pictures of 60 to 70 bighorn sheep. After returning to the highway and entering the Gardiner Basin, he glanced over at a field with a herd of domestic sheep and slowed. “I caught a motion out of the corner of my eye and saw a ram coming off the hill,” Hurley said. “He crossed over to the fence and hopped over at a low spot like he knew right where to go.”

The ram had jumped into a pasture where Jardine resident Bill Hoppe has moved his sheep. Wildlife advocates voiced concern last spring when Hoppe bought sheep for the first time and put them on the pasture that borders the Yellowstone River about eight miles north of Yellowstone National Park.

Wolf advocates protested after Hoppe shot one of two Yellowstone wolves that killed eight of his lambs. Others worry because domestic sheep carry disease that can affect bison and wild sheep. Domestic sheep can carry a few different strains of respiratory bacteria that can be deadly to bighorn sheep if they touch noses with domestics. Entire herds can die from pneumonia such as they have in Nevada and California. Montana had an outbreak in 2009 when 20 percent of bighorn sheep were wiped out.

“It's analogous to when the Europeans spread smallpox to the Native Americans — Europeans had immunity just like Old-World sheep have immunity after living among other livestock for centuries,” Hurley said. “But the bacteria are still novel in the western U.S.”

Hurley, a Wyoming Game and Fish bighorn biologist for 30 years, said the ram was initially startled by the sound of the bells on Hoppe's sheep. But the urges of the breeding season caused the ram to get within about 6 feet of the sheep.

Hurley yelled at the ram, which eventually jumped out of the pasture. Hurley then chased the ram back up the hill. Hurley drove on to his holiday dinner but returned a few hours later to see if the ram stayed away. He counted 27 bighorn sheep standing outside the pasture.

“This is the single biggest wildlife issue in much of the West,” Hurley said. “It's a difficult situation because it's private land. But everyone is really concerned.” Montana chapter executive director Jim Weatherly said he tried to call Hoppe, but his calls weren't returned.

Weatherly talked to Hoppe in April to propose some alternatives such as helping Hoppe find a different pasture or installing a double fence around the pasture. Weatherly said Hoppe wasn't receptive to any alternatives. “I even talked to him about the danger of predators and it wasn't two days later that the wolves killed his lambs,” Weatherly said.

FWP warden Sam Sheppard said no FWP employees have seen any bighorn sheep in Hoppe's pasture and that Hoppe also hadn't seen any. Sheppard said FWP would continue to monitor the situation. He said nothing could be done after the fact but asked people to report any similar incidents so wardens can respond. Hurley said he tried to report it but no one was around on the holiday.

In his own words, this is the account of the tragedy posted on Facebook by Layne Spence, owner of the dog:"What is on my mind is the tragedy that has taken place and the miss quotes from the media and the Sheriffs dept. So I am setting the record straight. This is what happened….I went crosscountry skiing up at Lee Creek campground where I have gone in the past. Knowing it was hunting season I put the bright lights that are on all three of my dogs collars.After skiing for about 200-300 yards I here “tat”, my dog in front of me, his rear leg is blown off. I scream “no,no,no,stop stop” and as I near my dog who was 15 yards in front of me I hear “tat,tat,tat,tat.”I look up and there is the “hunter” and I screamed “what have you done?” Screaming hysterically, the man says ” I thought it was a wolf.”I said “You just killed my dog, you killed one of my kids.”I started screaming “noooooo.” He started to say something like “can I do something,” not I am sorry.I said “Do you know what a wolf looks like? You killed my dog.”The man took off, I just screamed “noooooooo” and tried to put him back together but his leg was torn off and yes 15 yards in front of me and yes he was shot with an ASSAULT rifle, I know I have seen them it was either an AR 15 or AR 14. It was all black had a sound supressor and that was why no big BOOM BOOM semi automatic.I know guns, I don’t have any but I have shot them before, and yes I have hunted both Bow and Rifle. It is the irresponsible hunters who think they can shoot any animal they see if they are in the woods.The MT Fish and Wildlife said they couldn’t press any charges because it wasn’t a game animal on the road, it was a domestic animal. What???? Bullshit, So I left my skiis and poles there, put my Little Dave’s bloody and broken body on my shoulder and hiked out to also get my other dogs to safety.So no charges, I call the police dept who gives me examples of people getting hurt because of the public outcry and are afraid of vigilante violence. But the truth is still one of our rights and so is freedom of speech. I don’t want this guy to get hurt , but something needs to be done…I am heart truly heart broken, everything I do is for my dogs, from where I live, to what I drive, and what I do is predicated on the lives of my dogs…Thank you to everyone who has wished myself and my other dogs Frank and Rex well…Layne"

Ok guys. Time for some education okay you sick hunters out there ? ( Im sorry, really trying hard here to not loose my temper and remain calm. If that would have been my pet, I would not have asked the man what he was doing so nicely, although he held a gun in his hands. Not feeling guilty one bit on top of that, leaving the crime scene without a word of excuse. That’s how pathetic and thirsty for wolf blood, some sick heartless, immoral hunters are.You just don’t shoot any animal within so close of a range of someone skiing what is wrong with people ???)

This is a M-A-L-A-M-U-T-E. NO it does not look like a wolf and is even remotely close to looking like one. Malamute can be anything from 80 to 130 lbs. Wolves barely reaches 100lbs but sometimes will. Wolves do NOT have curly tail. Wolves do NOT have round paws. Wolves do NOT have any mask in their face, colors must blend throughout the coat. Wolves do HAVE long, narrow snout. Their nose are black. Not stripped. Wolve’s chest are VERY narrow, not broad and bulky like a malamute. Wolves HAVE slender, long legs. Not short, and thick like a malamute. Wolve’s head is a LOT bigger in comparison to the size of their body as well as WEDGE shaped.

MALAMUTE:

For heaven’s sake wolf haters and killers, stop killing OUR PETS. If you are uneducated enough to not be able to make the difference between a Malamute pet and a wolf, then don’t put other people's children, pet’s life in danger. What is wrong with this society ? Is the thirst for wolf blood so strong that people need to act like idiots waving their gun around and act like nothing happened when they kill someone’s PET ? It’s enough that the police shoot dogs for no reason most of the time that now the time has come to maybe start thinking about keeping your pets in the safety or your home and never ever walk them down the street, let them out or go on a hike or skiing for their safety. This is now the SECOND time of the season in Lolo Pass, that an uneducated fool killed someone’s pet.

At least a dozen wolf packs in Blackfoot Valley, little impact on livestock. (That is right. You have read right. For you wolves hunters and haters. Very little impact on livestock. )

MISSOULA, Montana — Wolf pack numbers in the Blackfoot River watershed northeast of Missoula have grown from one in 2007 to at least a dozen this year.

But wildlife officials hope the experience adapting to wolves in the Bitterroot Valley to the south may produce a different outcome for other wildlife.

“I know people are really concerned about the wolf numbers,” Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Seeley Lake biologist Jay Kolbe said of the population increase. “But they also know we have a more diverse predator population here. We have historic numbers of grizzly bears, and black bears, coyotes and lions here, too. And we’ve had a more integrated broad response.”

After seeing elk herds suffer in the Bitterroot and lower Clark Fork drainages over the past five years, FWP game managers cut back the antler less elk harvest in the Blackfoot to boost cow and calf survival there. Elk numbers are slightly below or at annual objective levels in nine of the 10 hunting districts in the Blackfoot region.The last district, covering lots of private ranchland around Helmville, is over objective. (Well, well. Look at this ! So Wolves are supposedly the reason why elk population in Montana is low according to Wolves Haters and Hunters ?!?!? Right …………

Hunting seasons for black bears and mountain lions also were adjusted upward to avoid creating a “predator pit” where too many carnivores are chasing a dwindling number of ungulates.

Despite the upswing in wolf numbers, Blackfoot ranchers have seen little impact on their livestock. (Well look at this. So ranchers do NOT seem to complain about livestock loss from wolves as much as Wolves Haters & wolves Hunter like to pretend, heh ?) Blackfoot Challenge wildlife committee coordinator Seth Wilson said there’ve been only a handful of probable wolf depredations, and no confirmed incidents in 2013.

“We’ve confirmed over the last five years less than four wolf kills per year on an 800,000-acre area,” Wilson said. “That’s about 35 ranches. We’re certainly seeing wolves, tracking them, but the good news is we have not seen a concurrent rise in livestock depredations to wolves over that period. It’s not having an economic impact on ranches.”

Wilson credited the Blackfoot Challenge’s wolf rider program, which employs a trained wolf spotter roaming daily among ranch pastures watching for predator activity. The wolf rider helps set up electric fences around calving areas, strings fladry flag lines around grazing areas, and quickly removes carcasses from accidental deaths or predator attacks so other bears or wolves don’t hang around to scavenge the leftovers.

“We haven’t done any active hazing this season,” Wilson said, “but we believe having a human presence out there can deter a wolf.”

According to FWP wolf biologist Liz Bradley, Blackfoot wolf numbers expanded steadily until 2010, when they leveled out. Surveys now indicate between 50 and 60 wolves in the region, while the number of packs went from nine in 2010 to perhaps 13 in 2013.

Bradley said that may reflect hunting pressure on wolves, which are running in slightly smaller packs than in previous years. The average size has dropped from seven animals to around five or six. That could be good, because larger packs often get in trouble preying on domestic livestock.

The Bitterroot Valley recorded 12 wolf packs in 2007 and 13 in 2012. The Mineral County area west of Missoula had seven packs in 2007 and at least 13 this year.

Hunters have killed five wolves in the two wolf hunting districts comprising the Missoula and Blackfoot valleys this season. They’ve shot another eight in the remainder of Region 2, which covers most of west-central Montana.

For the entire state, the take is 46 wolves this fall. The majority of wolves are killed by hunters seeking other game, such as deer or elk.

“Hunters are seeing a lot of wolves, and lots of them don’t have (wolf) licenses,” Kolbe said. “They’re a little upset with themselves. (Awe… Isn’t that cute… ) But it’s eye-opening how many are out there.”

Abstract: Management agencies have claimed that the recovery and public hunting of wolves is based in science. A review of their statistics demonstrated that data collection methods did not follow a scientific protocol which resulted in flawed and often incorrect data. Consequently, agencies do not know the total number of wolves in Montana, a major reference point used by wolf managers. Therefore, the quotas proposed for public wolf hunts are completely arbitrary, and management decisions in general have not been based on facts. This has produced a wolf management system that lacks scientific perspective and does not utilize what is known about the wolves’ role in sustaining healthy ecosystems. Instead, the absence of verifiable data suggests that management decisions are often based on opinion and politics rather than science.

In a short video recently released, the Center for Biological Diversity asks if you would pay $19 to kill a wolf. You probably wouldn’t, but 6,000 people in Montana just did.

Montana has an estimated 625 wolves left. Sadly, new changes to the hunting season, which started in September, could prove to be a disaster for those remaining wolves. It was extended to run for six months during which time hunters will now be allowed to take five wolves each, and they’ll be able to use traps, bait and electronic calls. The extra long season could also put pregnant and nursing females in the crosshairs because they’ll be allowed to continue through the spring. As an added bonus for hunters, out of state hunting fees have been reduced from $350 to $50.

In an attempt to get the other side of the story, the Digital Journal’s Justin King interviewed Montana hunter Jason Maxwell, who runs a pro-wolf hunting Facebook page. According to him, no one wants wolves in the state, and they “should be hunted 24/7 just like the coyote.” He also believes they were never actually endangered because there are thousands in Canada and Alaska and that people who don’t live in wolf states shouldn’t get to have an opinion.

While he sounds almost reasonable in the interview, he spews vitriol in the comments section and elsewhere on the Internet, proving that, at least for some, wolf hunting is about nothing more than hate, arrogance, intolerance and sometimes petty revenge. While he cites numbers from the state, trying to get a straight answer from wildlife officials about where the science is and how they came up with them in the first place is apparently as easy as trying to herd cats.

Last year, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks reported that 225 wolves were killed – 128 by hunters, 97 by trappers – during the 2012-2013 season. This was an increase from the previous year, with more than half of the wolves being killed on public lands. Another 104 were killed by the state throughout the year.

Conservationists fear the consequences of such policies if hunting is allowed to continue at this rate under state management. This year, Wyoming wants to reduce numbers by 60 percent, which will leave only abut 100 wolves. Since they lost ESA protection in the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies, more than 1,700 have been brutally killed.

When asked whether the government or environmentalists have hunters’ interests at heart, Maxwell responded that the “pro wolf side is fighting for the preservation of one animal while hunters and sportsmen are fighting for the preservation of all wildlife. The introduction is not just about the wolf it is also about maintaining the wildlife the wolf preys on.”

If that were true, predators would have dibs on prey, and if anything still needed to be “managed” then maybe human interference could be justified. In Montana’s case, indiscriminate killing with the sole intent to reduce the number of wolves to appease special interest groups isn’t management; It’s just a bloodbath.

Also, for conservationists, fighting to protect an apex predator and keystone species has beneficial cascading effects on other species, including plants, in the environments they’re present in. For some areas, they’re also a popular tourist draw which helps support local economies.

When it comes to wolf management, the very agencies charged with keeping track of numbers and deciding their fate have a serious conflict of interest due to the facts that hunting licenses generate revenue and there are no consequences for poor management policies or ignoring science unless the wolf population drops below the number required by the federal government, at which point they would lose management authority.

The Feds Still Want Them Off the Endangered Species List

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is still defending its proposal to remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for all wolves in the lower 48, with the exception of Mexican gray wolves, despite how terrible state management has proven to be.

As of September, there were 18,000 public comments opposing the delisting. There were also three public hearings scheduled; While one hearing in Washington D.C. took place, the other two in California and New Mexico were canceled thanks to the shutdown. However, organizations are still calling for more public hearings in states where wolves live or may appear so the public can actually have an opportunity to weigh in.

An independent peer review is also required to remove a species from the ESA. However, at the end of the summer the process was put on hold when three scientists were kicked off the peer review because they had added their names to a letter that was sent to the Department of the Interior questioning the science behind the proposal to delist wolves.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, this is the first time the FWS has put restrictions on scientists who may have an “affiliation with an advocacy position.” In this case the scientists in question didn’t necessarily have a stance as wolf advocates, they just did exactly what they were supposed to do. They looked at the available data and formed an opinion. Their opinions just didn’t match the objectives of the FWS, so they got blacklisted.

The FWS should continue to do its job, which is to ensure wolves are not subjected to out of control hunting policies and intolerance or the special interests of very vocal hunting and ag groups who continue to call for more to die.

Keeping ESA protection for wolves in the lower 48 won’t impact decisions in the northern Rocky Mountains or western Great Lakes, where wolves are present, but it will keep protections for the rest who are venturing into their historic range in other parts of the U.S. where there is suitable habitat in Pacific Northwest, southern Rocky Mountains, Northeast and California. Their continued survival depends on their ability to expand, instead of being confined by arbitrary lines they’ll never understand.

There’s still time to speak up on behalf of wolves. Since the peer review debacle, the FWS has extended the comment period until December 17. 2013. Please submit a comment asking that wolves remain protected under the ESA.

2 comments:

Please stop and ban wolves hunting , give them free run the wild , The wolves is belongs the nature , They life -giving to the wild , Please help save their ecosystem and habitat , do the right things now , love and respect animals , The natural need animals , help the protect our resources . Thank you

One World Presentation Management. Providing solutions for conference management that make new opportunities possible. Where a great conference strengthens membership loyalty. Step by step plan to build your meeting program.http://www.owpm.com